Thursday, March 13, 2008

Obama pastor Jeremiah Wright: "God Damn America" (UPDATED)

“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people,” he said in a 2003 sermon. “God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”

In addition to damning America, he told his congregation on the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda’s attacks because of its own terrorism.

“We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye,” Rev. Wright said in a sermon on Sept. 16, 2001.

“We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost,” he told his congregation.

ABC News has video... and wait through to the end when you hear some of Wright's worshipers defend the man. Can we call the influential pastor a radical's radical?

Yes. We. Can.

UPDATE: Think for a minute about a guy, running for President, who consistently, willfully, repeatedly and apparently faithfully, exposes his young daughters to this kind of crap week in and week out... and then think that some deem him to be a man of sound mind and good judgment? Bullsh*t:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A radical's radical, OH MY GOODNESS. Sounds like every drone conservative. "He's so radical, oh my, what a radical guy."
He sounds stupid to me but I guess since his stupidity goes agiasnt yours that means he is radical. Well thought out good fellow. I guess your thoughts and beliefs set the benchmark from which we all should be measured. If only everyone agreed with you then we would have no problems whatsoever.

You might want to watch those knees, boy. Your lower legs one day will fly off with all that jerking.

Can you at least try to make a coherent argument why it's okay for a pastor to condemn the country wherein he was able to be educated and has the liberty to have a church? Is it possible for you to make us understand why his whacky conspiracy theories, making the bad white guys at fault for the irresponsibility of black people are true and valid?

If not, then maybe you ought to keep your mouth shut until you have something sane and logical to say.

Extremists will always attempt to make a "whole lotta something" out of absolutely nothing. Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the right to say whatsoever he chooses to say. His words and sermons are based on his personal experiences and his parishioners' experiences. His approach is somewhat unlike Martin Luther King's delivery but the same message is there. Racism, classism, seperatism, extremism, sexism, and all of the other "isms" must be blotted out in this society if it is going to survive in the long run. Learn more about his background and you'll get a full understanding of where he's coming from, as it relates to his outlook/perspective. I've attended churches with some views that I don't particularly agree with but when I've weighed the positives versus the negatives I've found myself deciding to stay for the greater message or overall benefits. Biblically speaking, if a pastor is not shaking things up and speaking about things that directly influence and effect the lives of his parishioners, he/she isn't worth the salt in the earth. Remember Jesus was labeled a so-called "radical" simply because he spoke for the poor and disenfranchised among us. The Bible says "Be angry but do not sin." Rev. Wright is very high-spirited but that is because he loves people and wants the best for black people. His messages challenge us to rise above our circumstances and situations. Specifically, he insists that blacks aspire to be better and address those issues which either they have brought upon themselves or have inherited from being born into a poor, uneducated black family. Let's face it. There are strikes against them from the very start. He is not talking to those who are "well" and have figured out how to achieve success and overcome their circumstances. Afterall, as Jesus said and I'm paraphrasing.....they don't need a physician. I've heard many sermons by this man and most of them are fueled with great energy with an uplifting message. If not, the white parishioners would have left the congregation by now. Those who have leaked this and other short inserts from his sermons are trying to fuel racism and hatred, which is always "their" means to an end. Think about this: How many Catholics decide to use birth control even though their highest official, that being the pope, does not support the use of birth control? How many "Christians" commit fornication though the church and the Bible speaks, loudly, against it? My point being this, after hearing what a pastor/reverend/priest says it falls in our laps, as parishioners, to make the final decisions. By the way, to the person who made a reference to Barack's children listening to Rev. Wright's messages obviously hasn't attended church in a very long time. Children have what's called children's church or Sunday school during the "message." They are removed and taken to the basement or another area in the church where they read and are read stories about the life of Christ, his mission, and the Bible, in general.

By the way, the reverend did not condemn America. I believe he was saying God damns America b/c of our many "accepted" practices and utter irreverance to his word, that being the Bible. For example, Rev. Wright has spoken against abortion, yet Barack is pro-choice. The reverend has said many times that he loves America but he doesn't like the things it does in the name of love of mankind, prosperity, and peace. In reference to his comments regarding Hiroshima, etc., is he really not telling the truth. As Americans, we think everything we do is right and justified. Tell that to the families around the world who have lost loved ones b/c of our "need to protect our interests." I and Rev. Wright grieve for the loss of lives on 9/11 however we also grieve for the lives lost during this war, American and foreign. Aferall, we are all human. I'm realistic so I fully understand that governments do things for the betterment of their nation but let's not be naive and pretend like everything our government or any government does, for that matter, is righteous and in the best interests of humanity, overall. History does not reflect this view, whatsoever.

There's lots to respond to. First, no one hear is questioning Pastor Wright's constitutional right to be delusional. No one. So throw away that line of defense. It's ludicrous.

If you're saying that Wright's message is the same as Martin Luther King's message, then I'm going to suggest, less than gently, that you're smoking crack. And you should stop. It's killing your brain cells. Clearly.

What is Pastor Wright's greater message you're willing to hang around and hear rather than leave because of his idiocy? I'm afraid his greater message is clear. Blacks are victims. America is evil. White people suck. That's your greater message. It's obvious. Picture yourself hearing a white pastor doing what Wright is doing and targeting blacks. Picture what the media would be doing. Educate yourself Pearl. You're coming across as an idiot. A utopianist, someone naive and unable to separate the ideal from the real. You should grow the hell up. No lie.

You say Wright loves people? Yea... black people. And only certain black people. Because, in his own words, Condi, Colin, and other blacks who don't think like he does are people he despises and in fact is sick of which makes think of how sick I am of people like you who accept and defend this kind of lunacy. If you're not smoking crack, you're certainly drinking tainted kool-aid and you should stop. It's killing your brain cells. Clearly.

Oh... and that was me talking about Barak's irresponsibility in taking his children to this kind of hate-filled church. You can't defend it and when you try, you become a bigger fool. Wright is a hate-monger, a jew-hater, a black separatist, and Obama has made the decision to include him as a key advisor on his campaign. What does that say about Obama? What does that say about his judgment?

It says he's not the Savior the gullible, the ignorant and the uninformed have made him out to be.

Period.

And your final comments, where you join in the impugning of America, confirms for me what you represent. Someone willing to overlook the many faults of Reverend Wright while singing his praises and someone willing to cast aspersions on America despite her record of uplifting and upholding freedom across the globe. America's imperfections are front and center for you, this while overlooking Wright's more grievous imperfections. What a load of sh*t.

You are espousing idiocy Pearl. You and the many who think like you. You've lost your ability to think critically and instead have decided that emoting is the highest virtue.

You and those who think like you are ignorant... and you're doing your level best to ensure that ignorance is passed on.

Hope she's making money by doing her part. There's a huge campaign going on today to dutifully dispense these instructions out to everyone that what Pastor Wright said don't mean nuthin'. I mean...an enormous campaign.

If I was part of it, and didn't make a nickel off of it, I would feel like just the biggest fool. So Pearl, do go after that paycheck you're supposed to get from telling us we didn't hear what we did, in fact, hear. Like I said. Reality. Not for the timid.

Out of desperation, the Clinton campaign has stooped to extreme lows by having surrogate Geraldine Ferraro in the media making racist statements against Barack Obama combined with prompting the media to attempt to chastise Obama for rhetoric spewd by not him....but by his preacher! Realistically speaking, it is a fact that even if Hillary wins Pennsylvania there is absolutely no way she can get enough delegate votes to defeat Obama. And her BIG ploy now is to have a 're-do' in Michigan and Florida, despite the fact that this would be a changing of the rules in the middle of the game which should not be allowed. (rules that Howard Dean of the DNC, Harold Ickes, a chief Hillary advisor and Donna Brazil a regular on CNN who never exposes that she helped set the rules in August of 2007 as a member of the DNC Laws and ByLaws Committee) If allowed to have the rules changed for her benefit, Hillary then hopes that, after stealing the nomination, she will offer Obama the V.P. slot....figuring that if he excepts, Obama supporters will vote for her....while if he does not....she would at least look like she offered the slot. THIS IS UNEXCEPTABLE !

Hillary Clinton's (and the DNC's)coniving tactics will end up ruining the Democratic Party. Now is the time to let Howard Dean, Donna Brazil, Harold Ickes and the entire DNC know that if Hillary wins through ANY methods deemed trickery (which is the only way she can win) WE....THE PEOPLE WILL NOT SUPPORT HER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION !

National radio talk show host Warren Ballentine is asking EVERYONE to call the DNC at 202-863-8000 to let them know 'We Will Not Support A Cheater !'We need 50 thousand Americans of all ages, races and creeds to FLOOD THE PHONES !!! Call Today !!!! 202-863-8000. Say It Loud....WE WILL NOT SUPPORT A CHEATER.....PERIOD!!! Tell everyone you know to make this call. The Time Is NOW....for the Re-Birth of America !!!!

I’m glad that’s clarified. I would think “Multi Racial Blacks for Barack” would be more appropriate, but what do I know.

“the Clinton campaign has stooped to extreme lows by having surrogate Geraldine Ferraro in the media making racist statements against Barack Obama”

What exactly was racist about Ferraro’s comments? Seriously anyone, help a Cracker out here. For the record, I don’t necessarily agree with her but I hardly think her comments were in anyway racist. But there ya’ go, the same people who give Reverend Kill Whitey a pass, pull the race card on some silly remark.

Since you haven't attended any of his sermons you wouldn't know what most of his sermons entail. You are the ones who are delusional and misled. You have absolutely no clue what others who are different from you deal with, on a daily basis, in this country. It is ludicruous for you to even pretend or attempt to appear that you do. You didn't know Martin Luther King, Jr. so I'm certain that you don't know everything that he said, either. You only not that which you choose to know. Read and expand your mind. I won't even respond to the silly reference about crack. People like you are divisive and ignorant.

How you can listen to ANY sermon by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who was extremely educated and intelligent and thoughtful and compare them to that total ignoramus in Chicago - well, like Rick said, you must be smoking the crack.

Please stop. It's embarassing to you and to every other intelligent, hard working, educated black person out there who doesn't buy the racist propaganda.

Its fascinating how the American people are so easily distracted from issues that really matter. Opposed to getting titillated by who Obama and McCain's pastor is and what they think, you may want to take time to consider what if any of this has to do with your paying $4.00 a gallon for gasoline; 63,000 jobs lost in the month of February; the war in Iraq which is siphoning off $13 billion a month; 47 million Americans without healthcare; the Gulf coast still resembling a war zone two years post-Katrina; a gallon of milk costing almost $5.00; the astronomical number of American homes in foreclosure; American banking systems threatening to go under with your money still in it; gang violence out of control in many parts of the country especially the Mid west; the number of children in this country living two to three times below the federal poverty level; education system shot to hell --and I could go on. Keep on focusing on the dumb stuff and this country will get the government you already have and deserve because you refuse to look through all the smoke and mirrors. Keep focused on the media and its titillation de jour and come November you will all be living in a tent and getting to work on a skateboard because you were too focused on somebody's pastor instead of the real issues. Stay drunk with distraction if you will. In the interim, I wish you well with the outcomes realized.

It's all Bush's fault - he is the evil in the world, not their own evil and laziness and stupidity.

Please try to pay attention: a person's spiritual advisor says a lot about the person because you cannot be with a spiritual advisor with whom you do not agree in essence.

We do not need bigots or stupid people or cowards in the office of the president of the United States. We need people who can think for themselves, who know what is right and wrong (including the RIGHT of going to war to defend ourselves and liberate others) and who can inspire people to do their best.

We do not need lazy ass people who look to the government for everything and then complain when everything costs so much because they are taxed to support the things they want the government to do, instead of being enterprising and creative and doing for themselves and helping their neighbors and communities to do the same.

Oh well. Some people will never learn and will stay in their misery and ignorance forever. That is truly a shame, because we were meant for joy.

Why is a balck man can say anything he wants about white folk, but if a white man said something about black it's racism? I am so tired of black people being racist against white! This is bulls**t! And yes, Obama, who is half balck and white, lets not forget the man's momma! Does she not matter? Oh wait... we are playing the race card, so I guess she doesn't. Then we can't balme every white person who doesn't vote for Obama for being racist! Obama went to this man's church, he stood there and absorbed his sermons. He must have agreed with what the man, is it ok to call the Rev a man, or is that being sexist? Anyway, he continued to attend services at this church, claims this Rev. showed him the way. So he must agree with him. When was hte last time Obama was pulled over for being black? Well, I think mechanic are sexist b/c they talk to me like I am stupid and know nothing about cars b/c I have tits. Maybe I should start a movement against men, yeah, for judging me for being a chic. Lets wake up, who cares about what color the canidates are, screw it. Get back to focusing on the issues! WHY is everything about race?

If a white man was saying the kinds of things about black this Rev. did it would a different story. How can Obama united America, all this kind of shit is doing is causing more trouble. Amen to whoever posted the comments about the issues. Gas prices, healthcare... This is what matters to me. Obama will not beat McCain. I think Florida and Michigan's votes should count. I also think the delegates and superdelegates are stupid. We the people, should have the final say. Not the powers that be. Why even ask us if you have the power to change things! Just another flaw in the Goverment, bet Barack Hussein Obama won't change that!

You americans are such a bunch of sheep. You are so easily led along and just go with what the politicians tell you. If you people were to wake up and realize so many people in this world hate america for a reason maybe you could take a look at yourselves and figure out why. Who the hell died and made you the rulers of the world. If america stayed out of everyone elses business and didn't have to have troops in almost every country on earth they would not be a target of revenge. Think about it, if someone invaded your country would you just accept it or would you fight back? Well what do you think these people are doing? Bring your troops home to defend your country and let others sort out there problems. By the way all you suckers who think you are so free, take a closer look, everyday you give up more and more of your liberties in the name of safety. Grow some balls and stand up to this government bullshit and quit being such followers. News flash your government lies to you.

[Bring your troops home to defend your country and let others sort out there problems.]

Sometimes...in my weakest moments...I almost think the same thing. Instead of the US spending so much of our tax money on "world" defense...we could bring our troops home and let the "world" spend the "world's" tax money on itself.

Then the mean old US could spend it's citizens tax money on ourselves. More social programs, more government health care, etc. We could give ourselves more than you can imagine.

I think, "Ah, then the world would love us, after we let the world swallow itself with it's venomous hatred, and reduce itself to a stone age existence. In the process the world could watch the wonderful US citizens live in abject luxury not caring about the putrid conditions in the rest of the world. Surly then the world would love us."

Well, people like brenda and "don't matter" aren't really talking to anyone. A lot of people who live in other countries, see themselves as shareholders within an aristocratic layer, standing to gain something if their country's currency performs more strongly against the U.S. dollar. And so they spew their anti-American propaganda. They do it so they can be seen doing it.

Sad thing is, they aren't all living in other countries. Some of them live right here in America...and hate themselves for it.

Just remember, they aren't communicating. They're performing. That's what is sad about being a dedicated America-hater -- you have to worry about what everybody else is doing, and everybody else gets to butt in to what you're doing, which means most of the nonsense you spew out is just a lot of filler designed to please others. Thinking for yourself has become an American luxury, and although they won't admit it, this is a big part of the reason people "hate" America.

I'd just like to know why Rick's place is crawling with them all the time. It's almost like he left something out, and they came crawling in like ants. Hey Rick, do I buy these in bulk? They can't possibly cost too much, if you're paying for them.

If you don't want to give up that secret, maybe you can go to the bait shack or pet store and pick up another, let's say, two pounds. I'll reimburse you. I'll send you a dollar and you can keep the change.

I'd like to think that it's my brilliant prose... but we both know that ain't it...

I'd like to think that liberals see my exposition of truth (or more likely my pointing to other's exposition of truth) to be a threat and so the liars and their lying cohorts need to defend their lies and they choose to do so here... but I'm thinking that has some holes in it...

The truth of the matter is that somehow, someway, this blog tends to show up in Google more often than not and Lord knows the leftist loons and moonbats are certainly Google adept...

So there you have it... but what I love about what I do here is that I have regulars like yourself, like the Mommynator, like tim, like XtnYoda, like Leslie, like my brother Mike and numerous others who speak up and counter the idiocy plainly and expertly...

In the end, my hope is that perhaps one or two of those who've bought into the idiocy will read some of our words and will wake up from their stupor... yes, I know, it's quite an ambition, but it's an honest one nevertheless...

Just so you know Morgan Freeberg, I do not live in america but am a canadian who relies on the exact opposite of your theory of currency devaluation. When the US dollar falls against our currency it hurts our economy because we rely heavily on exports so I would much rather see a strong US dollar. I do not hate america I spend numerous days every year there and must say I like the place for the most part. The problem is that the general public is being slowly stripped of their rights in the name of security from an invisible enemy. My suggestion is to do some research into what really goes on in government and don't just take them for their word. Did you not see the latest report from all those documents seized in Iraq that found no link between Saddam and al-quaeda. So no link between Iraq and al-quaeda and no weapons of mass destruction the only 2 reasons cited for going to war and the american public just sits back and does nothing when these lies come out. Take a look at american foreign policy when it comes to the sad state of many foreign countries. It is not the american people to blame it is a select few individuals who are very, very rich and getting richer by the day. Who do you think is gaining from this war in Iraq? it ain't the Iraqi people or the american people, it is a select few very wealthy individuals. Ask yourself where all this defence contract money is going. I know it sounds good to you and the president is on your side lookin out for you makin you feel all warm and fuzzy inside but wake up people before it's too late.

"George Soros." Look him up. I dare you to find anyone with any authority over forming our foreign policy, who better fits the mold of an evil wealthy megalomaniac profiteering from current goings-on and the associated political currents, better than that guy.

If you are on here writing such poison-pen treatises as your 3/15/08 12:34AM posting in this thread, and you aren't getting your due compensation from any of Mr. Soros' multi-tentacled organizations, you really need to re-think your situation.

And give him a buzz if you want to find out how to make a profit on a currency's decline, too. He has a wealth of knowledge on that subject. Our evil conservative White House and the neo-cons ensconced within? Not so much.

I don't think all of Pastor Wright's comments are well taken, but some of them being cited here fit well within the prophetic tradition.

If you read the Hebrew prophets about the sinfulness of their nation Israel, Wright's God Damns America will not seem out of place at all. America is in fact guilty of many sins. Does not God still detest sin?

The 9/11 comment is very similar to some comments made by prominent figures of the religious right. The idea that our sins, either as individuals or societies, come back to haunt us in one way or another, is not unusual.

I think what Wright is being criticized about is really his refusal to worship the nation-state and his insistence on pointing out the sins of the nation. While I might not always appreciate the way he expresses it, Wright is largely on-point. Like the Old Testament prophets, his criticism does not mean he hates his country. The greater love is to point out the country's faults in the hope of repentance and turning from evil. This is classic Christianity.

This whole mess does raise the question of who Barack Obama really is. His political record and his condemnation of Wright's statements show him as a quintessentially establishment politician, unwilling to make any meaningful criticism of the failings of our country. Yet his choice of a church where such prophetic statements are the norm, and some other connections in his past, would seem more like someone who sees the need for fundamental change.

So the question is whether Obama really internally believes what he publicly stands for, or is hiding his belief in the need for change for political gain. If the former, he is not worthy of election because he stands for the things that need changing. If the latter, he is not worthy of election because he is dishonest and filled with personal ambition to the core.

So the question is whether Obama really internally believes what he publicly stands for, or is hiding his belief in the need for change for political gain. If the former, he is not worthy of election because he stands for the things that need changing. If the latter, he is not worthy of election because he is dishonest and filled with personal ambition to the core.

Very well said, Mr. Samuel.

I think what's gotten buried in all this is that if we believe everything he says about these embarrassments, he's losing an important advantage over Hillary -- who, if she is to be believed, suffers from an astonishing handicap in the bullsqueeze-detecting department. She can be sent out to tell us the rumors of her husbands infidelity are nothing but the ravings of a "vast, right-wing conspiracy" in the very moment in which an incriminating soiled dress hangs in Monica's closet.

Obama's own explanations indicate he's no better. The poor fellow seems to be an innocent, America-loving dimbulb surrounded by a bunch of grouchy curmudgeons who see nothing lovable about the country whatsoever...blissfully ignorant, since across decades he's never seen fit to discuss the matter with said curmudgeons. I mean, WHA?? One is his own wife, the other is the guy who married them together & baptized their children?

Not exactly "BRILL-YUNT!!!", in Oprah's words. Maybe she needs to re-think. We have some evidence that perhaps Dan Quayle could teach this guy a thing or two about figuring stuff out. After all, what've we got on Dan? The word "potato"? A bunch of Hollywood liberals didn't like his Murphy Brown speech? If Obama isn't dishonest, he needs clues...bad. The Clue Orchard could be picked at all week long and you wouldn't be hauling in what this guy's missing. You couldn't trust him to figure out what the funny noise is when your car idles over 3000 RPM...if, indeed, he disagrees with Pastor Wright. He's to be sworn in to the White House? Really?

So again, I have a lot of reasons to look skeptically at the democrat party already, but I get even more reasons if I simply -- believe the things democrats say. To find one such clueless dork, to champion as our possible next President, could be dismissed as a case of accident. A second seems like carelessness.

If you don't know any White bigots or racist who have been associated with McCain or Clinton over the past 20, 30 years don't speak on it. If we continue to dig, just like the far right has dug around and under Obama, we will be sure to find many more than just Hagee and Parsley who have lately been hanging around McCain. Besides, Jerimiah Wright has said no more than what everyone else discusses behind closed doors.

You're right! Wright has been exposing the racist history of our nation for over 35 years. Why do some Whites sweep racism under a rug or deny it? The disturbing verifiable facts and speculations Wright espoused are as real as the White racist bigotry and intolerance witnessed on these message boards, long before Wright came along, every waking day.

Now, that it's exposed by the media involving a Black man running for president and his preacher, 35 years later people are now listening. Where were all of you, now, overly concerned people over the past 35 years? You were turning a deaf ear to the Obamas and Wrights of the world.

Obama handled every question about his relationship with Wright very well, except when he was asked about ever hearing any of these revealing sermons. Obama and Wright should have told all of their critics to go you know where and kept moving onto more substantive and related issues affecting this nation and the world.

I also, agree that Obama had to lie about not hearing any of Wright's sermons about racism, as not to offend some of the same White people who ridicule, slander and hate Obama just because of his skin color.

If you do not agree with Senator Obama's policies or views then please don't vote for him. If you do then go ahead. There is no need to try to make him look like the devil when you all know that is far from the truth. He has a loving family and a loving Church. We all need to take a deep breath and just vote for who gives us the best realistic future for this great country. It is irrelevant what his Pastor said over 30 years of preaching. You might also find racist or violent passages of the Bible that speak to consequences of sin. Preaching is just that paraphrasing the Lord's words and those words are not made for Politics. That is why we have separation of Church and State in this country.

Mommynator, don't be willfully blind to the GOP's Achilles heal. They have had a wink-wink relationship with racism at least since Reagan went to Philadelphia, Mississippi to speak about "state's rights". It's a reason why all the "Dixie-crats" became "Reagan Republicans" and are now considered the "base". Racism is far more at home in the Republican party. One only has to point to Hagee himself, Rove's racist strategy against McCain in SC in 2000, and George Allen in 2006 for just a few data points.

But Obama's problems are not about racism. ("Reverse racism" is not a concept that plays well with the American public anyway, because they really don't understand it.) It's about anti-Americanism. And anti-Americanism is far more at home in the Democratic party. It's something they have not policed well. Rick would say it's because most Democrats are anti-American, presenting extremists like those found in Berkely, CA, as the norm.

While I don't think so, you won't hear me saying the Dems have proved otherwise.

I still can't believe half of you are here through Google, looking for arguments to have. And you're not even trying to slightly re-word some of these boilerplate platitudes as you paste them in from God knows what web site. You can polish this turd all you want, folks, the fact is the pastor is full of hate, and other than his eleventh-hour Huffington Post afterthought, we have absolutely no reason to think Obama's any better.

If he is, then he is one dim dullard, fer sure. I wouldn't trust that guy to find his own way out of a wet paper bag, if this is all the intellectual/forensic horsepower he's got to bring to the table. I could choose to believe him, but if I do that I have to wonder how in the world he gets dressed in the morning. And so do you, you just don't realize it.

President Bush has been made out to be the devil behind all the evil in the world, and yet he quietly attended a rather more traditional church whose pastor encouraged the Golden Rule, not white supremacy. And he attempted to act in good faith on the "Love your neighbor" thing, including liberating Iraq from a murderous dictator.

These are the comparisons that must be made in order to judge who will be president of the United States.

We don't need a person who doesn't even realize the racist drivel he's been listening to for 20 years because he's inured to it, and has a wife whose pinched perspective is also based on such a narrow, hateful narrative.

It's important, Ade. It's important.

It's just that you've drunk the KoolAid and do not want it to be important.

[Republicans] have had a wink-wink relationship with racism at least since Reagan went to Philadelphia, Mississippi to speak about "state's rights"...Racism is far more at home in the Republican party.

You know...the hairs being split are just so fine. And once you descend beneath a certain number of microns in diameter, it just gets freakin' useless.

Your first two links cite examples from 50+ years ago and, thus, go precisely to my point: The white Dixie-crats are now voting GOP and have been since Reagan made the appeal to them in 1980.

States' rights are written right into the U.S. Constitution. They have always been part of the debate about civil rights. And the concern over them, was a big part of the reason with the 1957 CRA was re-written into the 1964 CRA.

I have been bludgeoned, repeatedly, by persons like yourself and Bob Herbert of the New York Times, to believe ever states-rights advocate is some kind of a racist. Oh yes, you'll probably deny saying that but your argument completely depends on that.

Now, I'll go along with the idea there are some racists in there, but why am I to believe states-rights is a code word for racism, as if within every thousand states-rights guys theres a thousand KKK members? Why should I think that? Other than Bob Herbert wants me to think so.

Once again, your argument completely depends on this. Completely.

The last item is a blog opinion. That by definition is not a fact.

...and is to be shunted aside, if and only if it is an opinion you don't happen to like -- even when it is based on solid fact. Sorry old boy. I'm afraid more than a few people are actually going to click on the link and read it, in spite of your instructions not to.

Morgan, I'm actually shocked that this is remotely an issue that is in dispute.

Let me make it simple: Who do the Minutemen vote for? Who do the white supremacists in Mississippi vote for? Who do the bubbas that drive around with the confederate flag in the window vote for? Who do the survivalists in Montana vote for? 40 years ago, they all would have voted Dem. Now, they vote GOP. Again, that does not make all Republicans racist, but it certainly handily deals away with your revisionism that the current batch of Dems are racist.

As for your assertion that everything I've said depends on states rights advocates being in the KKK, that's just stupid. Obviously, one can believe in one without the other and most states rights advocates base their arguments on an interpretation of the Constitution. But there is no denying that slavery and Jim Crow were both cloaked in states rights advocacy. I'll stand by my point that Ronald Reagan's speech in Philadelphia, MI, in 1980 where he pledged to support state's rights was an appeal to Dixiecrats who had become disenchanted with their party's embrace of civil rights. And again, the mammoth change in voting behavior since then bears me out.

Finally, and this is all I'll say on this post, I want to know why you're all uppity about Wright's comments but not about the repeated similar comments by Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee?

How about Hagee saying "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that." Or Pat Robertson saying, "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes, and I don't think I'd be waving those flags in God's face if I were you..." and "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: If there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected him from your city." Here's a great one from Falwell: "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve." And finally, a beautiful one from Pat: "Maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up..."

Aren't all these men pronouncing damnation on America? Aren't all of these men at least attempting to speak out of an Old Testament prophetic tradition in which the people and the king were warned about god's judgment? Isn't it all equally silly and/or inflammatory? And aren't you just upset because Wright's words cut at your lifestyle, while those of Falwell and company don't? And shouldn't you be just as upset that Bush and McAssKisser seek out the blessings of these men as you are that Obama got Wright's?

Honestly, why are any of us voting for any person who seeks the endorsement of a man who says such drivel?

Have any of these pastors you've cited pastored a potential President of the United States for 20+ years? Have any of them baptized this potential President's kids? Have any of them married this potential President and his wife? Have any of them become members of this potential President's campaign? Have any of them inspired a potential President's best selling book?

And finally... have you lost your friggin' mind to come here and cite these examples and attempt to paint them as morally equivalent? Get a clue Zossima... seriously man, this sort of sh*t here is below your intellect.

Nice try, Rick. Typical. Make an ad hominem argument without proving anything. In this case, you need to prove that Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee's statements are morally superior to that which we know Wright has said. They're not. Robertson indicated that a branch of gov't should be nuked, for chrissakes!

Again, the issue is simple: How are they different? They're not. They're all men overstepping their bounds foolishly thinking they're being prophetic when they're just being asses.

No, Bush, McAssKisser, etc., have not been regular attendees at those men's churches. But they have courted their favor. What's the difference? Political patronage comes with a price. For Obama, that price may be some allegiance to Wright, and we damn well better be concerned. For McAssKisser, it will come with an allegiance to the religious right, and that frightens me as well.

I'm not backing Obama on this. I just think you right-wing extremists need to look in the mirror sometimes.

I'm not backing Obama on this. I just think you right-wing extremists need to look in the mirror sometimes.

No, let's cut to the chase. It would make you feel a whole lot better if the verbal condemnation of people & things, rather than being an article of free speech, were made into a privilege instead, so that it could be granted to people inclined toward a left-wing persuasion and denied to people inclined toward a right-wing persuasion.

You find it harmless when the former condemns things but frightening when the latter does, because the right wing places a greater priority on personal conduct than on your ideology, whereas the left wing places a greater priority on whether you're in their crowd than on your personal conduct. Just be on their side, and the left wing will let you get away with anything. Push some legislation through, and hell, you can drown Mary Jo Kopechne in your car and they'll circle the wagons for you.

It's cute the way you pretend to argue in some classic style straight out of Athens. Silly boy. You offer a moral equivalence between Pastor Wright and things spoken by Falwell/Robertson/Hagee and then say "you need to prove that Falwell, Robertson, and Hagee's statements are morally superior to that which we know Wright has said." I need to do no such thing. You're the one making the offering. You need to do the proving that they're equivalent; not just as silly statements, but as matters of concern, for the reasons Rick as stated.

Barack Obama is just as hateful toward America as Jeremiah Wright, or else he is one dumb cluck. Obama himself chooses the latter...which means that now, he is a bald-ass liar or one dumb cluck.

As far as the states' rights issue, you need to stop reading Bob Herbert for a little while. You who are big on differentiating facts from opinions -- good for you. But this outlandish Herbert thesis rests completely on an opinion, that the intent behind Reagan's speech in Neshoba County was to roll back civil rights. It's pure conjecture. If it isn't borne out by truth, the entire Herbert philosophy crumbles and with it, the argument you've been trying to make here.

There is very little available to substantiate this. The name "Mississippi," to northerners who bear a Reconstruction era grudge toward anything south of the Mason-Dixon, conjures up inflammatory images straight out of Deliverance neatly fitting in with the stereotypes of your own personal hate: "white supremacists in Mississippi" and "bubbas that drive around with the confederate flag in the window." That's about it. Reagan, by 1980, already had a long-standing pattern of making an issue out of the evils of centralized government power and championing local control.

Sure it would have been wise for him to tailor his language for certain parts of the country, knowing "states' rights" might have incendiary meaning in the deep south that it wouldn't have in the Pacific Northwest. But Americans have a suspicion toward politicians who re-write their speeches between whistle-stops, for good reason. And call me nuts, but I have a feeling the New York Times and the Washington Post would have jumped on that with equal gusto.

But I think what's above is all the excuse I need to offer, presuming I need to even offer that. Ronald Reagan is the guy who used two little words. Bob Herbert is the guy who has made an entire career out of speculating, hatefully, on their meaning. And Occam's Razor does not smile upon Mr. Herbert's speculation.

When Bob Herbert's race-baiting peer over at Time Magazine, Jack White, sought to capitalize on Trent Lott's problem back in 2002 using the "Reagan's speech in Mississippi" argument, Steven Hayward of the National Review Online dealt with the matter handily:

To be sure, it is difficult to imagine that Reagan was oblivious to the historical baggage of the phrase "states' rights" in Mississippi, and it cannot be ruled out that he was conscious of the problematic implication of his choice of words, just as Jimmy Carter was not presumed innocent of his use of "ethnic purity" in 1976. But "states' rights" was a sound principle of federalism that was debased by Democratic party rule in the south, for which it is not Republicans who owe an apology. Reagan had a long and well-known record of criticizing centralized government power, and this is how the media at the time interpreted his statement. "Most of those at the rally," the New York Times reported, "apparently regarded the statement as having been made in that context." And as a westerner Reagan had fully associated himself with the "Sagebrush Rebellion," for whom "states' rights" had no racial content, but rather meant wresting control of land from Washington. This was far from an outlandish or minority view. The same day Reagan made his "states' rights" remark in Mississippi, the National Governors Association issued what the Associated Press described as "a militant call for reduced federal involvement in state and local affairs." Arizona's liberal Democratic Governor Bruce Babbitt wrote in a New York Times op-ed article that "It is time to take hard look at 'states' rights' — and responsibilities — and to sort out the respective functions of the federal government and the states." I missed where Jack White added Babbitt to his roster of racists (never mind Carter's calculated appeal to "ethnic purity" in 1976).

In short, your argument is chock full of holes. You can't even say what it is, exactly. If you mean to say all racists support states' rights, the first racist I can find who does not, defeats your argument. If you mean to say all supporters of states' rights are racist, you directly contradict yourself, and again, the first exception I can find defeats your argument. If you mean to say there is simply a mathematical correlation, then all you've produced is a chestnut that might be tucked away for some future debate in which we might consider repealing the Tenth Amendment...and even during such a future debate, this would be a very weak argument indeed.

The fact of the matter is that states-rights is an American value that is chiseled forevermore into the Constitution itself, and has been a core part of the American experiment from the very beginning. It is exactly what is revolutionary about America. The "racism" angle is really nothing more than a sound bite drummed up by democrats when they realized it was getting in the way of their post-FDR dreams and delusions of federal imperialism, and in the 1960's they used it to pump up Lyndon Johnson's sagging popularity while he was botching up Vietnam.

It worked so well for them that they were able to screw up everything until 1968, when supposedly Nixon used a "southern strategy." You know what really brought Camelot to an end, and twelve years later handed that landslide to Reagan? American citizens got sick and tired of liberal solutions that don't work. In 1968 it was a justice system that lost all of its teeth, as criminals were allowed to run wild and free and prosecutors were afraid to press any cases against them. In 1980 it was the energy crisis -- people figured out it wasn't that energy was scarce, it was that liberal policies made it inaccessible. Well, it turned out they were right.

And so, once the liberals were exposed as charlatans dealing in bad ideas that don't work, don't produce the desired results, in fact, just make things worse...and weren't even popular anymore...the liberal speechwriters and pundits and politicians started to do what they do best. They started to argue it's really all just about racism and nothing more.

And they printed it up.

So people like you would read it. And believe every single letter of it.

For those of you who prefer to focus on MLK's I Have a Dream Speach and not the totality of his messages here are a few statements to ponder:

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching
spiritual death.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967.

[I]t is necessary to understand that Black Power is a cry of disappointment. The Black Power slogan did not spring full grown
from the head of some philosophical Zeus. It was born from the wounds of despair and disappointment. It is a cry of daily hurt
and persistent pain.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967.

When we ask Negroes to abide by the law, let us also declare that the white man does not abide by law in the ghettos. Day in
and day out he violates welfare laws to deprive the poor of their meager allotments; he flagrantly violates building codes and regulations; his police make a mockery of law; he violates laws on equal employment and education and the provisions of civil services. The slums are the handiwork of a vicious system of the white society; Negroes live in them, but they do not make them, any more than a prisoner makes a prison.

Martin Luther King, Jr., The Trumpet of Conscience, 1967.

But the absence of brutality and unregenerate evil is not the presence of justice. To stay murder is not the
same thing as to ordain brotherhood.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967.

Many of the ugly pages of American history have been obscured and forgotten....America owes a debt of justice which it has only begun to pay. If it loses the will to finish or slackens in its determination, history will recall its crimes and the country that would be great will lack the most indispensable element of greatness--justice.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967.

Being a Negro in America means trying to smile when you want to cry. It means trying to hold on to physical life amid psychological death. It means the pain of watching your children grow up with clouds of inferiority in their mental skies. It means having your legs cut off, and then being condemned for being a cripple. It means seeing your mother and father spiritually murdered by the slings and arrows of daily exploitation, and then being hated for being an orphan.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967.

This is where we are. Where do we go from here? First, we must massively assert our dignity and worth. We must stand up amidst a system that still oppresses us and develop an unassailable and majestic sense of values.

Don't let anybody make you think God chose America as his divine messianic force to be a sort of policeman of the whole world. God has a way of standing before the nations with justice and it seems I can hear God saying to America "you are too arrogant, and if you don't change your ways, I will rise up and break the backbone of your power, and I will place it in the hands of a nation that doesn't even know my name. Be still and know that I'm God. Men will beat their swords into plowshafts and their spears into pruning hooks, and nations shall not rise up against nations, neither shall they study war anymore." I don't know about you, I ain't going to study war anymore.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967.

We must stand up and say, "I'm black and I'm beautiful," and this self-affirmation is the black man's need, made compelling by the white man's crimes against him.

Martin Luther King, Jr., Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community?, 1967.

All we say to America is, "Be true to what you said on paper." If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn't committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right. And so just as I say, we aren't going to let any injunction turn us around. We are going on.

And I can make this since I have been familiar with Rev. Wright for over a decade, having heard him preach in DC numerous times:

52 Sundays per year
1872 Sundays in 36 years
46800 minutes preaching (at least)
2,808,000 seconds preaching
And you choose to focus your entire opinion of Wright (and, in some cases, Obama) on approximately 100 seconds found on youtube.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-You-So-Strong/dp/0817011986/ref=cm_lmf_tit_1
--read the excerpt from inside the book (click Look Inside!)

Have more time to read: http://www.amazon.com/Good-News-Sermons-Todays-Families/dp/0817012362/ref=cm_lmf_tit_5

Ask yourself a few simple questions:
How many videos were available and had to be viewed to pull these short clips?
Is it logical to think that whites would join this church or that a man with a white mother, who was raised by whites attend a church where the minister consistently spoke of hating whites (as many have determined)?

You don’t like what Wright said or how he said it, cool. But you can’t make sweeping generalizations based on very little information, especially when no attempt was made to offer an alternative point of view.

Morgan, I think it's quite obvious that praying to god that a branch of gov't be nuked is morally equivalent to saying "God damn America." There is nothing for me to prove.

Honestly, if you have to spend that much text disproving this very simple logic, it's not even worth reading.

I think Obama has a big problem because of his pastor. But you are intellectually dishonest to look the other way when it's one of your boys. That doesn't surprise me, because this isn't about honesty for you. It's about some "good versus evil" bullshit where you'll do anything to win, even if it means being what you accuse your enemy of.

BTW, that petulant fratboy that you drool all over like an 8th grade girl has not only brought us another Vietnam, his administration has brought us another S&L crisis, and possibly worse. Worst. President. Ever. You're such a tool.

Morgan, far from being remotely relativist, I seem to be the only one arguing for an absolute moral ethic: If you wish bad things on the US, it doesn't matter who you are.

You're the one who wants to give Pat and Jerry a free pass. Apparently, it's okay if the damnation is directed at gays but not if it is directed at whites. Your the one who wants to look the other way while McAssKisser gets their endorsements.

Please, think before you write. You might want to know what words like "relativist" mean before you drop them on others.

Really? Where did I say that? Or anything else, for that matter...about these people who do not have much to do with the matter under discussion.

Which is Obama's hate-pastor. And whatever negative feeling he has about America that he's afraid to discuss with people outwardly. (Or that people can manage to hide from him because he's such a dimbulb.)

Yes, you're a moral relativist because when someone gets caught with their hand in a cookie jar and you find it embarrassing, your WHOLE argument is "yeah but this other side does it too and as the imperial emperor of moral arbitration I have decided you aren't allowed to utter a peep of negativity against this guy unless you also condemn that other guy over there and I'll figure out how to enforce this sooner or later." That's what a moral relativist is.

A moral absolutist ignores the supposedly-parallel scenarios and asks himself, "does this suck or does it not? Why, yes, yes it does!" Which is as far as you can get from what you're doing here.

You're just making a simple situation complicated because you don't like what it's going. Well, newsflash...Hagee/Falwell/Robertson are off topic. Because they simply are.

I'm not embarrassed about Obama or his pastor. I'm not voting for him. If he loses because of this, then the people have spoken. (But the Dems could run Teddy himself this year and win, cuz the economy is going to be that bad.)

I merely point out your hypocrisy. I wish I could do this with crayons, because I think that's the only way you'll understand. Let me try again: Guys on your side say the same thing. I think they should all be held to the same standard. (That would be a moral absolute, braniac.) You want to take Hagee and Falwell off the table because you're a tool for a failed ideology who lives under some false pretense of moral superiority that is pretty easily exposed. I just exposed it.

Fine. Don't tolerate Obama's pastor. But don't tolerate McAssKisser getting an endorsement from Hagee either. Oh, wait, it serves your purposes. You get your GOP panties all in a bunch when it's the other side, but look the other way when it's yours. And that's what makes you the relativist.

Morgan, it's very telling that the only way you can achieve your "absolute" (Obama bad, Bush, McAssKisser, etc., good) is to take Falwell, Hagee, etc., off the table. Again, I want both sides held to the same standard. That's an absolute. You want your guys off the table. That's relativism.

Capiche? Now quit wasting everyone's time. God, there should be some criteria of minimal intelligence before people like you get to use the Internets.

Well since I haven't commented one way or t'other about Falwell/Robertson/Hagee except to challenge the notion that the situations are similar, and you clearly don't find my comments acceptable, it's not enough for you that we refrain from letting Falwell/Robertson/Hagee off the hook, is it? Especially when you agree with people like me that Wright's statements are, indeed, deplorable.

Therefore, what you really want is a mandatory disclaimer. No one is allowed to criticize the Rev. Wright without being forced to condemn, with equivalent viciousness, the Falwell/Robertson/Hagee triangle.

Just leaving that triangle unmentioned is going to fall short of making you happy.

Morgan, insisting that the "triangle" is off the table is itself a comment, a statement of how you view the situation. And correct me if I've missed it, but I haven't seen a "challenge" to my contention that the situations are equivalent, except you and Rick saying that they aren't. Again, "God damn America" and wishing on the public airwaves that god would nuke a government building--pretty much the same thing. I'm thinking no political candidate should downplay and/or accept the endorsement of anyone who has said those things.

I'm sure Jesus said something about telephone poles and toothpicks. In this case, I think there's a telephone pole for both sides. Do I want a disclaimer? Maybe just a little less righteous indignation? It's not like the GOP is composed of choirboys, on this or many other issues.

But that would entail dropping the whole "they bad, we good" belief system that frames your entire worldview. So I'm not banking on it, since you obviously derive a lot of your identify out of thinking that everyone but the diehard Bushies is out to wreck America and that everyone who isn't a diehard Bushie or wouldn't hang an anvil from someone's genitals is on the Berkeley city council.

Morgan, insisting that the "triangle" is off the table is itself a comment, a statement of how you view the situation.

Insofar as it's a different subject, yes you are correct. Seems to me it should be up to you to explain how you are, essentially, threadjacking.

And correct me if I've missed it, but I haven't seen a "challenge" to my contention that the situations are equivalent, except you and Rick saying that they aren't.

Yup, that'd be a challenge alright.

Again, "God damn America" and wishing on the public airwaves that god would nuke a government building--pretty much the same thing.

Nope.

I'm thinking no political candidate should downplay and/or accept the endorsement of anyone who has said those things.

I refer you to Sister Toldjah's quote above.

I'm sure Jesus said something about telephone poles and toothpicks. In this case, I think there's a telephone pole for both sides.

There may be, but since the two situations are different it's not worth exploring.

Do I want a disclaimer? Maybe just a little less righteous indignation?

Poop in one hand and wish in another, see which one fills up first. There's something amiss when/if a perceived front-runner for the presidency can retain front-runner status, after being associated with someone spewing this kind of drivel. Associated even weakly.

It's not like the GOP is composed of choirboys, on this or many other issues.

Let's come up with a name for this: The "Johnny's Doing It Too" defense. We aren't addressing the question of which party has more crooks in it. We're trying to figure out if Barack Obama is a shameless liar, a dimwit, or both.

Your Mom, Bridge, Everybody jumping off, would you do it too. That whole thing. Maybe your momma never ran you through that exercise, but it doesn't change the fact that your red herring is sheer nonsense.

But that would entail dropping the whole "they bad, we good" belief system that frames your entire worldview.

I'm sorry, you were talking to who again?

I'm the "democrats suck" guy. The "Republicans are much better" guy might be around here somewhere, between the "not a dime's worth of difference between the two" guy and the "Vote Libertarian for real change" guy. Fact is, I'm less likely to vote Republican this year than I have been in quite some time.

I will say this, Republicans DO get a raw deal from the media. But to get an earful about how wonderful and perfect they are, you need to go somewhere else. For a handy ready-to-order essay on how much democrats suck, sure, head on over my way and I'll hook you up.

So I'm not banking on it, since you obviously derive a lot of your identify out of thinking that everyone but the diehard Bushies is out to wreck America and that everyone who isn't a diehard Bushie or wouldn't hang an anvil from someone's genitals is on the Berkeley city council.

See above.

You know, I feel this obligation to scrutinize your point-of-view with at least the level of care that I'm pointing out is missing from your analysis of me. And I'd do it, but there's nothing there. You're just a democrat cheerleader claiming not to be one, relying overly much on the "The Other Kids Are Doing It Too" defense. It doesn't cut here. Your parallel situation involving the Falwell Triangle isn't parallel, for the reasons already stated multiple times, and --

-- well, shoot, I don't mind saying it again. Barack Obama is a liar or a dummy. Maybe both, but it's gotta be at least one of those.

BTW, my "how can you condemn one and not the other" argument that Morgan tries (vainly) to dismiss without being able to construct a cogent thought of his own is exactly the argument Rick makes in his prior post. But again, the hypocrisy is rank. It only counts if it's one of their guys and not one of yours.

They do seem to be in there somewhere. And hey, I'm all for making such meaningful distinctions wherever the good pastor seems to be giving us license to do so.

But it doesn't look to me like he's being that precise. Passion, not precision, is the point of his exercise. How come as soon as he's done firing his Howitzer we have to come in and dissect the resulting smoking craters with surgical scalpels?

Problem is Rev. Wright specified the "white" man over and over. He said Jesus was a "black" man killed by "white" Romans...etc. Go back and listen again to his verbal reference to the "white" oppressions he lists. There is very little need to presume from guilt what he emphatically states.

OK, if it is all true then what does that make Obama? How do you feel about Obama for denouncing Rev. Wright for speaking the truth? That would certainly put Obama in the "Uncle Tom" category that Rev. Wright pointed out.

Seriously, not baiting you. If you are for Obama you need to think about this kind of reaction and the fact that he condemns it. It hurts Obama, it doesn't help him.

Wright's speech was inspired by Ambassador Edward Peck, who was chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq under President Carter. Peck is white by the way. Not sure how this affects your perception of the speech.

Lots of good points are raised here, some to chew over, some to throw back to MoveOn.org with a laugh - see: Pearl's comments. Rev. Wright is a joke, and to think - he's moving into a rich white neighborhood! Into a million-dollar mansion no less with a ten million dollar credit line. Hmm, I seem to recall a sermon where he was bashing rich white people...oh how our tune changes when we have money!

To the poster dubbed "It don't matter" - Ya know, everyone seems to hate us until they're in trouble - then we're their best friends. Doesn't that seem a tad funny to anyone else? Oh well. Perhaps the US should call its troops home and leave the rest of the world to fend for themselves - now that'd be a real party wouldn't it? Could you imagine some of the headlines? Not that I fall into the "bring the troops home" thinking - but sometimes I have to sit back and wonder.

And to people that live in America and are crying about it being so bad - there's the door, don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out. Go to another country where they flog you for being a bigmouth - maybe then you'll appreciate what you have rather than act like spoiled brats throwing tantrums whenever something doesn't go their way.

I could have put this post more eloquently, but I'm just fed up with all the bull flying around nowadays. So, there really is no nice way to say it anymore.

I am a European woman of 32 who have red above what the good reverend Wright is to have said. And I must say that the things he says does not differ much from what the majority of European people already hold for true when the US is regarded.
Wake up, Americans and listen to pastor Wright. It might be hard for you to face the truth in his words, but reality doesn't change just because you choose to ignore it...

No matter how Obama and his pastor, Wright, tries to spin it, convolute it, or muddle it, the fact remains that the issue was never about religion, race relations, or even, the latest Wright claim, against the black church. (Or as I heard on Red Eye the other night, “Saying it is about being against the black church is equivalent to saying that people against pedophile priest are against the Catholic Church”.)

This is about a preacher using his office to espouse a racist, extreme leftist, anti-American agenda, which Barak Obama clearly embraces since he himself has espoused similar anti-American rhetoric in his San Francisco speech. During that speech, according to Obama, (paraphrase) ‘Middle American’s embrace their guns and religion because they are bitter’. For a man who has a degree in Constitutional law, he needs to take a refresher course, because both guns and religion are protected rights under the US Constitution.

The fact that Obama’s wife, Michelle, also espouses similar anti-American rhetoric, “America is a downright mean country”, further shows that these are deeply ingrained leftist sentiments that she and her husband share with their pastor. The further fact that they sat through Wrights sermons (and I use the term sermons loosely), week after week, year after year, with their children alongside them, listening to this man’s inflammatory, anti-American, racists rants, shows the level of their belief in his rhetoric was so great that they allowed their children to be exposed, to what at their age is clearly indoctrination.

Wright also told us that Obama lied (yet again) when he (Obama) told us that he dis-invited Wright to his Presidential Candidacy announcement because he didn't agree with Wright's rhetoric. Wright told us he was there anyway, in the basement to be exact, with all the Obamas - praying together, according to him. (We can only guess what they were really talking about, though I’m sure there was laughter involved over the major deception they were putting over the stupid American public.)

If Obama lied to the American public about not having Wright at his Presidential Candidacy announcement, how much of a stretch is it to think that Obama won't have this hate monger with him in the WH?

Finally, Wright and Obama claim that this kind of preaching occurs in black churches throughout the United States. Not so, according to Roy Innes, Chairman of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), who stated on Fox News that you'd have to go to a thousand churches to find one black pastor who espouses such hateful rhetoric, and maybe not even then. He said there is no excuse for this kind of hate speech and is not reminiscent of any black church he's ever attended. Maybe, that's because Wrights hates speech is more reminiscent of a ME Mosque than any Christian Church in the US. This could also be why Wright is such good friends with his pal Farrakhan, a fellow Muslim.